Explore the vast range of titles available.

A traveler tells the story of his safari in Kenya, the people he met, the stories he heard, and the wildlife he experienced.

Although designing and conducting surveys may appear straightforward, there are important factors to consider when reading and reviewing survey research. Several guides exist on how to design and report surveys, but few guides exist to assist readers and peer reviewers in appraising survey methods.1-9 We have developed a guide to aid readers and reviewers to discern whether the information gathered from a survey is reliable, unbiased and from a representative sample of the population. In our guide, we pose seven broad questions and specific subquestions to assist in assessing the quality of articles reporting on self-administered surveys (Box 1). We explain the rationale for each question posed and cite literature addressing its relevance in appraising the methodologic and reporting quality of survey research. Throughout the guide, we use the term \"questionnaire\" to refer to the instrument administered to respondents and \"survey\" to define the process of administering the questionnaire. We use \"readers\" to encompass both readers and peer reviewers. Several types of questionnaire testing can be performed, including pilot, clinical sensibility, reliability and validity testing. Readers should assess whether the investigators conducted formal testing to identify problems that may affect how respondents interpret and respond to individual questions and to the questionnaire as a whole. At a minimum, each questionnaire should have undergone pilot testing. Readers should evaluate what process was used for pilot testing the questionnaire (e.g., investigators sought feedback in a semi-structured format), the number and type of people involved (e.g., individuals similar to those in the sampling frame) and what features (e.g., the flow, salience and acceptability of the questionnaire) were assessed. Both pretesting and pilot testing minimize the chance that respondents will misinterpret questions. Whereas pretesting focuses on the wording of the questionnaire, pilot testing assesses the flow and relevance of the entire questionnaire, as well as individual questions, to identify unusual, irrelevant, poorly worded or redundant questions and responses.18 Through testing, the authors identify problems with questions and response formats so that modifications can be made to enhance questionnaire reliability, validity and responsiveness. Types of validity assessments include face, content, construct and criterion validity. Readers should assess whether any validity testing was conducted. Although the number of validity assessments depends on current or future use of the questionnaire, investigators should have assessed at a minimum the face validity of their questionnaire during clinical sensibility testing.2 In face validity, experts in the field or a sample of respondents similar to the target population determine whether the questionnaire measures what it aims to measure.20 In content validity, experts assess whether the content of the questionnaire includes all aspects considered essential to the construct or topic. Investigators evaluate construct validity when specific criteria to define the concept of interest are unknown; they verify whether key constructs were included using content validity assessments made by experts in the field or using statistical methods (e.g., factor analysis).2 In criterion validity, investigators compare responses to items with a gold standard.2

\"A young boy growing up in Seoul, South Korea shares details of his life over the course of a single day\"-- Provided by publisher.

On a visit to New York City to see Uncle Jorge, Freddie brings his special sneakers which give him super speed but are becoming too small for his growing feet.

Non-scientists feel shut out and confused by articles that use technical language — even if it’s defined. Non-scientists feel shut out and confused by articles that use technical language — even if it’s defined.

\"Fans of Disneyland, Disney World, and all things Disney are sure to enjoy learning all about the fascinating founder, Walt Disney. This new biographic reader reveals the interesting, enchanting life of one of the world's most beloved storytellers and entrepreneurs. Level 3 text provides accessible yet wide-ranging information for fluent readers\"-- Provided by publisher.

Background Plant homeodomain (PHD) fingers are central “readers” of histone post-translational modifications (PTMs) with > 100 PHD finger-containing proteins encoded by the human genome. Many of the PHDs studied to date bind to unmodified or methylated states of histone H3 lysine 4 (H3K4). Additionally, many of these domains, and the proteins they are contained in, have crucial roles in the regulation of gene expression and cancer development. Despite this, the majority of PHD fingers have gone uncharacterized; thus, our understanding of how these domains contribute to chromatin biology remains incomplete. Results We expressed and screened 123 of the annotated human PHD fingers for their histone binding preferences using reader domain microarrays. A subset (31) of these domains showed strong preference for the H3 N-terminal tail either unmodified or methylated at H3K4. These H3 readers were further characterized by histone peptide microarrays and/or AlphaScreen to comprehensively define their H3 preferences and PTM cross-talk. Conclusions The high-throughput approaches utilized in this study establish a compendium of binding information for the PHD reader family with regard to how they engage histone PTMs and uncover several novel reader domain–histone PTM interactions (i.e., PHRF1 and TRIM66). This study highlights the usefulness of high-throughput analyses of histone reader proteins as a means of understanding how chromatin engagement occurs biochemically.

Sparky's magic bone sends him to Kangaroo Island, Australia, where he helps a fox terrier puppy named Mick find a new family by asking every animal they meet.

The Southeastern Geographer has long been recognized within geography as one of the most respected regional journals. Unfortunately, those outside our discipline tended to view the journal as parochial due to its regional focus. This work presents recent digital readership data for the Southeastern Geographer which shows that 43% of readership is outside our region, and more than 13% of readership is international. The data also indicate that the Southeastern Geographer is widely read outside our discipline as well. Author experience is shared which suggests that the regional nature of the Southeastern Geographer increases reader engagement and papers appearing in the journal are more widely read than more specialized publications. We conclude that the Southeastern Geographer should be considered a model for modern scientific communication and make a case that efforts to marginalize the journal as regional are misplaced.